Eliyahu said:
There is no conflict in my statements, and all procedures of hearing is of the Biblical discernment. Truly being born again means the change of the life, and there must be a starting point in such change.
We know Martin Luther was born again, though he showed the much problem with Anti-Semitism and Mariatology.
John Wesley was born again on May 24, 1738, Pascal was saved on Nov 23, 1654, and Harry Ironside, Erich Sauer, George Muller, and many more as well.
I am very sure some posters on this board are saved and have the clear testimony of Salvation though I have differed from them on many issues.
Actually there is great conflict, in fact, except for wording they were virtually identical to the requirements of Rome minus submission to the Pope.
You require knowledge of the exact moment of conversion while for you it is an ephemeral feeling it is for the RCC the moment of Baptism. You require acceptance of Jesus while the RCC requires acceptance also but they call it confirmation. You require an account of the life before conversion and so do the RCC'ers they just call it confession. You require a testimony of how they will deal with sin so do the RCC'ers they call it penance.
You say that you believe in by grace alone through faith alone and then you require all of these human works for them to be considered saved. It is an inconsistant teaching at best. The biblical model is that which is given in the Mandate of Christ, that disciples are made by the Holy Spirit acting through Baptism and teaching. This you do not say, instead you give a list of requirements much like the RCC does. In some ways in your attempt to distance yourself from the teachings RCC you have made yourself into a Popeless rcc.
Likewise, we don't limit the salvation to a certain group of people, or to our group of Plymouth Brethren, or to the people of certain man-developed doctrines, but our assessment is done after hearing the actual testimony about how Holy Spirit started to dwell in them. But what RCC does is different, they said there is no Salvation outside the RCC, and the recent statement by the pope is the reaffirmation of the past decrees though he just said about the Defective Churches. If you do not discern the difference between Biblical Discernment and the Catholic criteria, then you are far away to preach the Gospel to the unsaved because you don't know whether they are saved or not, you don't know what is the difference between the saved and the unsaved, except the facts of church-goers or non-church-goers.
In that case a Blindman is guiding another blindmen and blindwomen. I wish it should not be your case.
Actually you are not as different as you might think. You both discern salvation on the basis of a theological construct. While you do not have a theological construct built around a physical institution you do have one built around physical acts and theological ideals.
You didn't answer my question, do you agree that Lutheran is defective church as Pope said?
I didn't answer your question because I thought it was self evident what I would think, my mistake.
Short history lesson because my moniker is a dead give away of what I think of the Pope's proclamation.
Martin Chemnitz, also known as the Second Martin, rose to prominance as a theologian shortly after the passing of Martin Luther. He is credited as being the most instrumental person in holding the Lutherans together during the persecution inflicted on the German people after Emporer Charles invasion of Germany to reinstate Catholicism. During this time many errors were creeping into the teachings of various Lutheran ministers and teachers, so he and a small group of theologians brought together the various parties and examined the teachings in detail in order to settle the question of orthodoxy. This work culminated in the formation of the
Formula of Concord, which is regarded by orthodox Lutherans as one of the most important theological documents ever written by man.
Martin Chemnitz also played another major role in the history of the Lutheran Church. During the Council of Trent, he served as one of our observers of the proceedings. After which he wrote a four volume examination of the council in which he condemns the RCC for the continuation and formalization of its errors, including the formalized doctrine of no salvation outside of the papacy.
So to answer your question, I do not believe we are defective church. In fact, I consider all denominations outside of the confessional Lutheran denominations (thus excluding the ELCA and its cronies) to be heterodox at best.
